The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Secularism is not atheism > Comments

Secularism is not atheism : Comments

By Max Wallace, published 10/11/2008

Secularism is a form of neutral government that listens to all points of view. Militant and some moderate Christians don’t want that.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. All
Good article. This would of course be the ideal - a neutral government and a society that truly embraces the idea of freedom of belief and a real separation of Church and State.

Runner
I don't think you are a bad person but your posts always seem to be filled with anger and intolerance of anyone with a different belief than your own. Can you not see that secularists seek an end to the division that religion sometimes creates and to each religion/belief its own safe and secure place in society - including your own.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 10 November 2008 11:29:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican you ask

'Can you not see that secularists seek an end to the division that religion sometimes creates and to each religion/belief its own safe and secure place in society - including your own.'

Some secularist might be well intentioned but they have no hope of ending division. They are unable to be in unity with each other let alone others. Look at the impotent UN which is really a pathetic representation of humanist. The more secular our nation has become the more divided we have become. Secularist are often very dishonest. Anyone can see that a child's best chance in life is to have a loving mother and father. Secularism has done nothing but attack the traditional family unit with its godless policies. Surely you can see that people have voted with their feet as far as schooling is concerned. Many at private schools are not even slightly religous but they can clearly see the fruit of secular education.

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt about not being a 'bad person'. All people have an adamic nature (bias towards sin). Our only goodness comes from the One who is perfectly good. You seem to think that I am an angry person. Those who know me would disagree vehemently. I am one with strong opinions and I realise I am in the minority on many of them. You however are blinded if you can not see the anger and violence displayed by many secularist when they do not get their way. Many secularist are dishonest about science somehow validating their opinions.

Shalom
Posted by runner, Monday, 10 November 2008 11:58:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is misguided, because the author has made a fundamental blunder in his thinking.

He fails to understand the difference between separating church and state, and separating faith and politics. It isn't surprising that someone without religious faith fails to see the distinction; but the mere fact that Wallace makes no effort to make the distinction shows what an intolerant man he really is, towards people who don't share his atheism.

Ironically, it's the same kind of intolerance of which he accuses religious people.

So my summary of this ridiculous rant? Pot and kettle, pot and kettle... Max Wallace is clearly just as much blinded by his own intolerance as the "militant" Christians whom he takes fire at. Judging by some of the comments in this article, perhaps even moreso
Posted by Trav, Monday, 10 November 2008 12:22:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bill Broome said:

"sorry folks. science explains the world quite well, religion has long been exposed as nonsense. no amount of "burn them! is going to repair your history or current foolishness."

If science explains the world so well, then why does it fail dismally when asking the two biggest questions of all?

- How the the universe begin?

- How did life begin?

The Big Bang theory accounts for the development of the universe, but not the beginning. How did the matter which prompted the big bang get there in the first place? how did something come from nothing?

The same question applies to life. Evolution accounts for development of life (and..I might add, does a very questionable job of explaining even that), but doesnt have any theory for abiogenesis- ie: How did the first, very intricate cell get there?

In fact, science has come up so short in these two areas that Richard Dawkins has admitted that "you could make a serious case for a Deistic God".

Clearly, science does not satisfactorily account for explaining all of life's questions when it can't even come close on the important ones.

Back to Max Wallace.

"An atheist form of government can be hostile to religion".

Clearly, this is the kind of government which Wallace is pining for. He talks about World Youth Day and says this:

"If Australia was a republic with a constitutional separation of church and state, straight out donations of cash to religions like this could be unconstitutional"

Notice the COULD- obviously this is what Wallace would be wanting. But regardless, thats not the issue. The issue is that Wallace has missed the point (again....). Since when is the World Youth Day a "donation of cash". Categorising the event like that is sheer ignorance at its best. It was a cultural event which served a large proportion of Australia's population and brought in hundreds of millions of dollars of tourism dollars to Australia. And Wallace chooses to categorise it bluntly as a "straight out donation".

Again, Wallace shows that he's blinded by his own intolerance. Sad really
Posted by Trav, Monday, 10 November 2008 12:38:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don’t support a hard-line “separation of Church and State” (nor does the U.S.- the terminology doesn’t appear in any official documents).

Church and State should not COMPROMISE one another. They will inevitably influence one another (people form governments, and people may be religious) but the State shouldn’t get its final rulings from the Pope, and the government shouldn’t tamper with the free practice of religion.

At a public lecture on Constitutional law, I learnt that the two biggest influences on Western civilization are ancient Greek culture (from which we get our democracy) and the Judeo-Christian heritage (from which we get our equality- you had to be male, rich, a land-owner and free to be part of the demos in Greece). Our legislation and common law would make no sense without the influence of both of these. They made us who we are today.

You outline the kind of atrocious practices that occur in some theocracies (most of them Islamic) and then define Australia as theocratic because, wow, a few Christians set up a national thanksgiving day with the approval of individual MPs! We have crosses in our flags! Of course we do. It is a part of our heritage. It is not an enforced dogma (in the same way that ancient Greek practices are not enforced) but it has shaped a part of who we are.

Some points:

“secular governments are democracies which respect a citizen’s right to believe whatever they want and usually practice those beliefs, so long as that practice does not entail breaking the law.”

So what does free practice entail?

Would a secular state allow:

-the freedom to actively proselytise? They should because this is a basic tenant of most of the missionary religions. Yet some secularists have called for it to be removed.

-a Christian doctor the freedom to not be involved in the killing of a foetus? Or would it force the doctor to at least refer the mother onto another doctor so she can eventually kill her foetus? (c.f. decriminalisation of abortion in Vic).
Posted by netjunkie, Monday, 10 November 2008 1:32:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
-the Church the freedom to preach homosexuality is a sin? Or to prevent practicing homosexuals from holding ministry positions? They should because this has been a part of the Christian text for millennia. Yet in some parts of Canada, parts of the Bible referring to homosexuality have been outlawed and the Aussie Greens have favoured positive discrimination for homosexuals in religious organisations.

-free criticism of other religions? It should, but if it were to be politically-correct it probably wouldn’t. It might confuse critiquing a person’s beliefs and/or behaviours with a hate crime (c.f. religious tolerance legislation).

-parents choosing to send children to schools that reflect their values or is this too “divisive” as Gillard has said? Would it allow parents to prohibit their 12 year old daughters from getting on the pill or is it really up to the state to decide this?

“The notion that governments should be respectful of ALL opinions and favour none…”

Would this include the right for an individual to say in the public square “I think _____ is wrong because I am a Christian?” (or should those individual’s opinions be discarded)

What sorts of things would secularism be likely to encourage? I’ll take a guess:

"Secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people, and to play games with the humanity of those in between."
-N.T. Wright

Bill “Science explains the world quite well”
Science may explain a mechanism, but not the agent. It can answer “how” but it does nothing to answer “why”.

“Religion has long been exposed as nonsense”
Read a little of the Christ Files, the Case for Christ, etc. The more research people do into the historical events of Christ, most importantly His alleged death and resurrection, the closer they come to belief, not disbelief.

Re: tax, I’m sorry to self-plug, but Max would you mind addressing some of the issues I wrote about here please: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2173
Posted by netjunkie, Monday, 10 November 2008 1:33:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy